Citation Nr: 0030784
Decision Date: 11/27/00 Archive Date: 12/01/00
DOCKET NO. 95-20 475 ) DATE
)
)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St.
Petersburg, Florida
THE ISSUE
Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric
disorder.
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans
WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL
Appellant
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
L.J. Bakke, Associate Counsel
INTRODUCTION
The veteran served on active duty from November 1960 to
January 1963.
The Board remanded this claim for further development in
January 1998. Upon receipt of additional medical evidence,
the RO determined that new and material evidence sufficient
to reopen the previously denied claim for service connection
for an acquired psychiatric disorder had been received. In a
May 2000 Supplemental Statement of the Case, the RO explained
that the claim had been reopened.
The Board further notes that the claims file contains a
decision denying service connection for bilateral hearing
loss. This decision is dated July 27, 1999 and thus falls
within the criteria for readjudication under Section 7 of the
Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-475,
114 Stat. 2096. This matter is referred to the RO for
appropriate action.
REMAND
The Board notes that the regional office (RO) has not had the
opportunity to apply Public Law No. 106-475, the Veterans
Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (Nov. 9, 2000; 114 Stat. 2096).
Under the terms of the Act and Karnas v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.
App. 308, 312-13 (1991), the RO should apply the provisions
of the Act to the current claim.
To ensure that VA has met its duty to assist the veteran in
developing the facts pertinent to his claim, and to ensure
full compliance with due process requirements, this case is
REMANDED to the RO for the following action:
The RO should consider the veteran's
claim for service connection for an
acquired psychiatric disability in light
of the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of
2000, Pub. L. No. 106-475, 114 Stat.
2096.
The case should thereafter be returned to the Board for
further review, as appropriate. The Board intimates no
opinion as to the ultimate outcome of this case. The veteran
is hereby notified that, if he is requested to appear for a
VA examination, it is his responsibility to report for the
examination and to cooperate in the development of the case.
The consequences of failure to report for a VA examination
without good cause may include denial of the claim.
38 C.F.R. §§ 3.158, 3.655 (1999).
The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and
argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded to
the regional office. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369
(1999).
This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment by the RO.
The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the
Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or
other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious
manner. See The Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994,
Pub. L. No. 103-446, § 302, 108 Stat. 4645, 4658 (1994),
38 U.S.C.A. § 5101 (West Supp. 2000) (Historical and
Statutory Notes). In addition, VBA's Adjudication Procedure
Manual, M21-1, Part IV, directs the ROs to provide
expeditious handling of all cases that have been remanded by
the Board and the Court. See M21-1, Part IV, paras. 8.44-
8.45 and 38.02-38.03.
MARY GALLAGHER
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans' Appeals
Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991 & Supp. 2000), only a
decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to
the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This
remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not
constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your
appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2000).